Pages

Sunday, 13 June 2010

¿WHY NOT ADAM N’ STEVE?

SISSY, FAGGOT, PUNK, HOMO, QUEER, B!TCH ASS NIGGER…those are just some of the things they call us. If I had a dollar for every time one of these words pierced my spirit I would be well on my way to personal financial freedom. Certainly the money could never be fair compensation for the emotional and psychological damage that was the true cost of such cruel expressions of hatred and ignorance. Unfortunately, these are the words homophobes, gay bashers and ordinary people use to describe gay men when they seek to emasculate us. The impact of such defamation leads gay men on a journey in search of manhood (or masculine identity), a destination that can only be found if we choose to man up by being with a woman. This leaves gay men wondering, ‘am not I a man?”

In the creation story recorded in Genesis, Adam was created in Genesis 2:7 and Eve was created in Genesis 2:18. It is critical to note that eleven verses come in between the creation of Adam and that of Eve. Importantly, in these eleven verses God builds Adam’s home, the Garden of Eden, and he gives Adam the job of dressing and keeping the garden. Here is the validation of his manhood and ours. Adam had a sense of self and purpose that was not connected to his existence as a sexual being. In fact, the questions stand up, was Adam a sexual being in these eleven verses before Eve was created? When did Adam become a sexual being? Apparently, whenever it happened the timing was irrelevant to God giving Adam a sense of duty and personal responsibility for his task in the garden. Adam’s sense of self was in development before Eve. Hence, Adam was Adam because he was Adam not because he was not Eve. Adam was a man because he was a man not because he was not a woman. I, like Adam, am a man because I am a man; my manhood, like Adam’s, is defined by my character and my sense of personal responsibility.

This concept of male identity does not support the heterosexual claim of owning the image of God based on sexual orientation - manhood or male identity is now detached from the heterosexual experience. Now, the asexual man and the eunuch have a place in the spectrum of validated male identity. The impact of this enlightened perspective is that women are no longer the benchmark or vehicle in understanding male identity. This implies that I am no longer a man because I have a woman, but I am a man because I possess godly virtues.

This understanding of self negates the emasculation of people based on sexual orientation and fosters a redefinition of manhood which is separate from sexual orientation. Given this paradigm shift, sexual orientation and the physical and emotional manifestations of masculinity can now be properly categorized as biological and social character traits - not the be and end all of masculinity. I believe gay men have enough evidence to answer the question, CAN ADAM HAVE STEVE? The answer, of course, is a resounding YES!